Add a wrapper for the `pci_sriov_get_totalvfs()` helper, allowing drivers
to query the number of total SR-IOV virtual functions a PCI device
supports.
This is useful for components that need to conditionally enable features
based on SR-IOV capability.
Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhiw@nvidia.com>
---
rust/kernel/pci.rs | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
index 7fcc5f6022c1..9a82e83dfd30 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
@@ -514,6 +514,18 @@ pub fn pci_class(&self) -> Class {
// SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
Class::from_raw(unsafe { (*self.as_raw()).class })
}
+
+ /// Returns total number of VFs, or `Err(ENODEV)` if none available.
+ pub fn sriov_get_totalvfs(&self) -> Result<i32> {
+ // SAFETY: `self.as_raw()` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
+ let vfs = unsafe { bindings::pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(self.as_raw()) };
+
+ if vfs != 0 {
+ Ok(vfs)
+ } else {
+ Err(ENODEV)
+ }
+ }
}
impl Device<device::Bound> {
--
2.51.0
On Sat Dec 6, 2025 at 9:42 PM JST, Zhi Wang wrote:
> Add a wrapper for the `pci_sriov_get_totalvfs()` helper, allowing drivers
> to query the number of total SR-IOV virtual functions a PCI device
> supports.
>
> This is useful for components that need to conditionally enable features
> based on SR-IOV capability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhiw@nvidia.com>
> ---
> rust/kernel/pci.rs | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> index 7fcc5f6022c1..9a82e83dfd30 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> @@ -514,6 +514,18 @@ pub fn pci_class(&self) -> Class {
> // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
> Class::from_raw(unsafe { (*self.as_raw()).class })
> }
> +
> + /// Returns total number of VFs, or `Err(ENODEV)` if none available.
> + pub fn sriov_get_totalvfs(&self) -> Result<i32> {
> + // SAFETY: `self.as_raw()` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
> + let vfs = unsafe { bindings::pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(self.as_raw()) };
This results in a build error if CONFIG_PCI_IOV is not set:
error[E0425]: cannot find function `pci_sriov_get_totalvfs` in crate `bindings`
--> ../rust/kernel/pci.rs:521:38
|
521 | let vfs = unsafe { bindings::pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(self.as_raw()) };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in `bindings`
error: aborting due to 1 previous error
On Sat Dec 6, 2025 at 9:42 PM JST, Zhi Wang wrote:
> Add a wrapper for the `pci_sriov_get_totalvfs()` helper, allowing drivers
> to query the number of total SR-IOV virtual functions a PCI device
> supports.
>
> This is useful for components that need to conditionally enable features
> based on SR-IOV capability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhiw@nvidia.com>
> ---
> rust/kernel/pci.rs | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> index 7fcc5f6022c1..9a82e83dfd30 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> @@ -514,6 +514,18 @@ pub fn pci_class(&self) -> Class {
> // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
> Class::from_raw(unsafe { (*self.as_raw()).class })
> }
> +
> + /// Returns total number of VFs, or `Err(ENODEV)` if none available.
> + pub fn sriov_get_totalvfs(&self) -> Result<i32> {
The return type if `pci_sriov_get_totalvfs` is a bit unfortunate. It
returns `driver_max_VFs`, which is a `u16` [1], but not before
implicitly converting it to an `int` - even though it doesn't make use
of negative values to indicate errors!
Even its C callers eventually compare its returned value to a `u16` [2].
How about a cleanup patch to fix it to return `u16`, so we can make the
Rust wrapper return a `Result<NonZero<u16>>`?
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/drivers/pci/iov.c#L1281
[2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/drivers/pci/iov.c#L474
On 06.12.25 13:42, Zhi Wang wrote:
> Add a wrapper for the `pci_sriov_get_totalvfs()` helper, allowing drivers
> to query the number of total SR-IOV virtual functions a PCI device
> supports.
>
> This is useful for components that need to conditionally enable features
> based on SR-IOV capability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhiw@nvidia.com>
> ---
> rust/kernel/pci.rs | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> index 7fcc5f6022c1..9a82e83dfd30 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> @@ -514,6 +514,18 @@ pub fn pci_class(&self) -> Class {
> // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
> Class::from_raw(unsafe { (*self.as_raw()).class })
> }
> +
> + /// Returns total number of VFs, or `Err(ENODEV)` if none available.
> + pub fn sriov_get_totalvfs(&self) -> Result<i32> {
> + // SAFETY: `self.as_raw()` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
> + let vfs = unsafe { bindings::pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(self.as_raw()) };
> +
> + if vfs != 0 {
> + Ok(vfs)
> + } else {
> + Err(ENODEV)
> + }
In the thread [1] there was some discussion about the `if {} else {}`
"style". From that discussion I "distilled" 6 options [2] which I
liked for having an overview :) Of course not all of these applied
there (const), neither will they here. And all have pros and cons. I
think in the end option #4 was selected.
What's about to do something similar here (and in the 2/7 patch as well)?
if vfs == 0 {
return Err(ENODEV);
}
Ok(vfs)
Dirk
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CANiq72kiscT5euAUjcSzvxMzM9Hdj8aQGeUN_pVF-vHf3DhBuQ@mail.gmail.com/
[2] Options distilled from the thread [1]:
1.
if let Some(sum) = addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) {
return Some(sum & PAGE_MASK);
}
None
2.
addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1).map(|sum| sum & PAGE_MASK)
3.
if let Some(sum) = addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) {
Some(sum & PAGE_MASK);
} else {
None
}
4.
let Some(sum) = addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) else {
return None;
};
Some(sum & PAGE_MASK)
5.
match addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) {
Some(v) => Some(v & PAGE_MASK),
None => None,
}
6.
Some(addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1)? & PAGE_MASK)
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 08:12:10 +0100
Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06.12.25 13:42, Zhi Wang wrote:
snip
> In the thread [1] there was some discussion about the `if {} else {}`
> "style". From that discussion I "distilled" 6 options [2] which I
> liked for having an overview :) Of course not all of these applied
> there (const), neither will they here. And all have pros and cons. I
> think in the end option #4 was selected.
>
> What's about to do something similar here (and in the 2/7 patch as
> well)?
>
> if vfs == 0 {
> return Err(ENODEV);
> }
>
> Ok(vfs)
>
> Dirk
>
Hey Dirk:
Thanks for the detailed summary! As a C programmer before, I tend to do
as above, because it improves a lot of readability on success path.
While playing with rust, I tend to use 5). Personally, I try to stay
away from if let chains, as some lifecycle changes happen in rust 2024
[1]. It wouldn't bite right now, but stay away from the bumps. :)
As Miguel's comment in another thread, I would improve this as
discussed.
[1]
https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2024/temporary-if-let-scope.html
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CANiq72kiscT5euAUjcSzvxMzM9Hdj8aQGeUN_pVF-vHf3DhBuQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> [2] Options distilled from the thread [1]:
>
> 1.
>
> if let Some(sum) = addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) {
> return Some(sum & PAGE_MASK);
> }
> None
>
>
> 2.
>
> addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1).map(|sum| sum & PAGE_MASK)
>
>
> 3.
>
> if let Some(sum) = addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) {
> Some(sum & PAGE_MASK);
> } else {
> None
> }
>
>
> 4.
>
> let Some(sum) = addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) else {
> return None;
> };
>
> Some(sum & PAGE_MASK)
>
>
> 5.
>
> match addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1) {
> Some(v) => Some(v & PAGE_MASK),
> None => None,
> }
>
> 6.
>
> Some(addr.checked_add(PAGE_SIZE - 1)? & PAGE_MASK)
>
On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 9:52 AM Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com> wrote: > > What's about to do something similar here (and in the 2/7 patch as well)? In general, using early returns (especially for error and `None` cases), i.e. keeping the happy path as the unindented/main one, matches better the usual kernel style. Whether that is with a simple `if` or `let ... else` etc. it depends on the case, of course. Cheers, Miguel
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.